RAGHAVAN vs STATE OF KERALA

The revision petitioner herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code in

C.C.No. 703 of 1999 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode. He faced prosecution on the allegation that at about 4.15 p.m.

on 26.05.1999, he drove the bus No. KL-10-A 3501 rashly and negligently along the National Highway at Cheruvannur, the said bus hit on a fire

engine that came from the opposite side due to the said rashness and negligence, and in the said accident, some passengers in the two vehicles

sustained injuries. One passenger in the bus driven by the accused sustained grievous injury, and the others sustained only simple injuries. The

police registered the crime on the complaint made by one of the injured, and after investigation, submitted final report in court.

The accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained

to him. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P15 documents in the trial court.

When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that the accident in

fact occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the fire engine. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment

for three months each under Sections 279 and 337 IPC, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 338 IPC.

Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2004, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode, with Crl.A.No. 126 of

2004. In appeal, the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but reduced the sentence under Section 338 IPC to

imprisonment for six months. The other two sentences were maintained. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality

and propriety of the conviction and sentence.

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no ground or reason to interfere in the findings and the conviction made by the

courts below concurrently.

PW1 to PW6 and PW11 are the persons who sustained injuries in the accident. PW1 sustained grievous injuries, and the others sustained only

simple injuries. These aspects are proved by the evidence of the doctors examined as PW12 and PW13. PW1, who made complaint in this case,

identified the accused as the driver of the bus, and stated that the accident occurred due to the over speed of the bus driven by the accused. PW2

was the driver of the fire engine. His evidence is that the accident occurred only because the accused over took another vehicle rashly and

negligently. During cross examination, he stated that he had seen the accused driving the bus, and he affirmed that the bus driven by the accused hit

on the fire engine only due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. PW3 to PW6 also corroborated PW2 on all material

aspects. They were the firemen travelling in the fire engine. All are consistent that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the

part of the bus driver. They also identified the accused as the driver of the bus.

On an appreciation of the evidence as discussed above, I find that the prosecution case stands well proved that PW1 to PW6 and PW11 had

sustained simple and grievous injuries in the accident where the bus driven by the accused rashly and negligently hit on the fire engine driven by

PW2. I find no ground for interference in the conviction. However, I feel the necessity of some modification and reduction in the sentence imposed

by the court below.

It appears that all the injured persons had made claim for compensation, and they have already obtained compensation. PW1 had not sustained

any bone fracture. One tooth was slightly fractured, and one tooth was loosened. On a consideration of all the relevant aspects, I feel that the

maximum fine sentence under the law will be the adequate sentence in this case.

In the result the conviction against the revision petitioner under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC in C.C.No. 703 of 1999 of the trial court is

confirmed, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the jail sentence imposed by the courts below under the three Sections

will stand set aside, and instead, the revision petitioner (accused) is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Sections 279 and 338 IPC,

or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 337 IPC, or in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for two weeks. The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within three weeks from this date to make payment

of the fine voluntarily, on failure of which steps shall be taken by the trial court to realize the amount of fine, or enforce the default sentence.